FEST in a Nutshell—Concluding Phase I
Part 4 • Entry #024
Outline of Phases and Parts
With this entry wrapping up Part 4 of the FEST Log, FEST now consists of:
Part 2: Inspiration from the History of Physics
Part 3: Inspiration from the History of Contemplation
Part 4: A Unification of Sciences of Matter and Mind?
Together, these Parts now constitute:
Phase I: an initial articulation of a FEST foundation.
Looking ahead, the next stage of FEST will be:
Phase II: Toward a FEST Community,
starting with the introduction of multiple voices:
Part 5: Dialogues on Nonduality
We will start with the core claim of FEST: the FEST working hypothesis, which serves as a cornerstone in the foundation. This hypothesis is supported by five criteria for what a science of mind can be expected to have in common with a science of matter, before we can begin to think about a possible future unification of the two.
Note: in addition to this FEST Log, we now also have a FEST website.
Five criteria to characterize science
Central to the whole FEST program is the challenge of isolating from natural science the “working ingredients” that made it so successful, in order to find similar ingredients for a science of mind. If the choice is too strict, the attempt to construct a real science of mind will fail, collapsing into yet another naïve, reductionistic form of projecting physics onto domains beyond physics. If the choice is too lenient, it will no longer be a science. I expect that the FEST program will, over time, refine its choice of what counts as science.
Two preliminary remarks: first, this discussion is in no way meant to be a value judgment. To the extent that social science disciplines do not fit all of the criteria, it does not mean that I doubt the value of the activities as they are conducted in academia and beyond. This exercise is intended only as a practical way to make the initial leap from the current science of matter—and in particular from physics as the simplest form of natural science—to a science of mind. Second, while I am well aware of the many attempts by philosophers and historians to delineate what science is, most of those attempts, interesting and enriching as they have been in their very important details, have been too specific to take as a starting point.
Therefore, I am biting the bullet here, by listing five core criteria which I have distilled from my own experience as a working physicist. They represent what I see as the essence of science—specifically natural science as it has developed since the 17th century—describing its structure, dynamics, emergence, background, and results:
1) Natural science is a collective form of inquiry to understand the nature of matter by developing increasingly accurate theories constrained by empirical evidence, logical coherence, and maximal simplicity, as the basic structure of scientific explanation.
2) Scientists form a self-governing, open-source community that builds consensus from empirical evidence and requires competing theories to be shown equivalent where they apply, describing the intersubjective dynamics by which science progresses.
3) Science as we practice it today formed in the 17th century as an emergent phenomenon from the meeting of technology and mathematics—of Aristotelian engagement with phenomena and Platonic mathematical abstraction.
4) This emergence was made possible by an extended background of prior developments in mathematical theory and model building, beginning with Greek mathematics and Babylonian astronomical observations.
5) What sets science apart from earlier engineering is its category-changing results—such as walking on the Moon and bringing the fire of the Sun down to Earth—that, before science, belonged to the realm of mythology.
These criteria are offered as working characterizations: a conservative, historically grounded template against which the possibility of a similarly disciplined science of mind can be tested.
The FEST working hypothesis
Most natural scientists implicitly assume that mind or consciousness will eventually be explained as causally reducible to brain processes. FEST does not reject this view outright, but questions why it should be taken as the default starting point.
Every scientific inquiry begins with phenomena. At every moment of our lives, we deal simultaneously with matter and mind. There is no a priori reason to privilege one as more fundamental than the other. Epistemologically, our knowledge of the world resides in our mind; ontologically, our bodies reside in the world (cf. entry #018: A Mind in a World in a Mind in Reality).
From this perspective, FEST adopts a working hypothesis: matter and mind are inseparable aspects of reality, which may ultimately be unified into a single science of reality.
Historically, unification hypotheses have been extraordinarily fruitful in science, combining, for example, celestial and terrestrial motion, electricity and magnetism, space and time. By analogy, developing a science of mind in parallel with natural science may open the way toward a future unification of the two, grounded in empirical tests and covering both domains appropriately.
Let us now take a closer look at how the five criteria listed above could be adapted to play similar roles in a science of mind.
Structure and intersubjective dynamics for a science of mind
The structural characterization of science carries over almost verbatim if “matter” is replaced by “mind”—with one crucial exception: what counts as empirical evidence?
In classical physics, empirical evidence is often equated with laboratory experiments producing objective results. FEST reframes this concept more generally as intersubjective agreement, which is a notion that remains applicable when the mind itself becomes a laboratory.
Physics itself has already stretched the classical notion of empiricism. Quantum theory dissolved clean separations between subject and object, yet remained scientific by refining—rather than abandoning—its evidential standards. This historical flexibility suggests that a potential science of mind can develop its own intersubjective standards.
The dynamics of doing science are even more revealing. Over centuries, natural science developed a self-governing, open and consensus-seeking community. Contemplative traditions, despite millennia of disciplined introspection, never formed such a unified community. Key elements were missing: broad self-governance, free public exchange, cross-tradition consensus, and systematic avoidance of schisms. Where disagreements arose, fragmentation often followed.
This contrast helps explain why a science of mind did not emerge historically, despite abundant contemplative expertise.
Emergence, background, and results for a science of mind
Science of matter emerged at a specific historical moment: the 17th-century meeting of technology and mathematics. There is no analogous origin for a science of mind. Neuroscience is a genuine natural science and has made remarkable progress, but it does not yet amount to a science of mind. Hopes that something like mind or consciousness will somehow “emerge” from brain science remain speculative, especially in light of persistent challenges such as the Hard Problem of Consciousness.
To be empirical, we have to start with phenomena. Where the science of matter began with observations of planetary motion in the heavens, a science of mind can begin by studying patterns of motion in our own minds which thereby can function as a laboratory or a field site.
Using “contemplation” as a neutral umbrella term for extensive and sustained forms of meditation practice, we can identify rough analogues of theory (“view”) and experiment (“practice”). Across cultures, these traditions have accumulated extensive experiential knowledge. Just as science of matter began with background knowledge from the theories and observations of the Greeks and the Babylonians, there is no reason to ignore similar background knowledge from the vast body of contemplative traditions offered by a diversity of cultures.
Within this broad contemplative landscape, the FEST focus is not on doctrinal differences but on reported experiences themselves, asking where intersubjective convergence appears most clearly.
Among this rich diversity, there is a striking pattern: nondual insights that transcend the subject-object split appear unusually convergent across cultures. Documented encounters between contemplatives from different traditions often report recognition of shared core insights. This suggests a possible empirical foothold for a science of mind, a central topic for Part 5.
The results of such a science are impossible to predict. But if it proved even remotely as transformative as the science of matter, the effort would be worthwhile. Moreover, unlike the science of matter, a science of mind would necessarily demand ethical clarity, since mental disturbances directly compromise the functioning of the laboratory itself. This is a vast and central topic, relevant in our day and age more than at any earlier time in history. Many of the Phase II dialogues will focus on such practical applications.
Having articulated the conceptual foundation of Phase I, we can step back for a moment to take a bird’s-eye view of the FEST trajectory from past to present to future.
History of FEST, 2024–2025
In the next entry, #025, we will begin Phase II, “Toward a FEST Community.” During Phase I, the goal was to provide an initial outline of a foundation for a science of mind. This was a conservative approach, minimizing speculative additions not clearly motivated by empirical considerations, as summarized in the five criteria above.
I am glad to have been able to build such a foundation in roughly two years while writing this FEST Log from scratch. This was possible because the questions underlying FEST had occupied me for more than half a century, during which I wrote many drafts and discussed them with friends, often in informal circles.
There is one question to which I do not yet know the answer. I have long suspected that there must have been earlier attempts to develop a science of mind by analogy with the science of matter, but I have not yet encountered one that comes close to the conservative core ideas of FEST. Some approaches lean too heavily on materialist assumptions; others are too closely tied to specific contemplative or spiritual motivations to function as a neutral counterpart to natural science. Many rely on single guiding intuitions—information, computation, holism, or ecological metaphors—but none, so far, seem to stay as close to the defining features of natural science as I understand and adapt them. If such forerunners exist, I would be very interested to learn about them.
Prehistory of FEST, 1970–2023
For roughly the first quarter-century of my explorations, in parallel to my study and research in physics and other fields of natural science, I also studied and practiced various contemplative traditions. Over time I grew encouraged by recognizing more and more similarities between both, from the roles played by empirical experiments and theories in both, to a very similar sense of awe that was shared especially by those who made the greatest breakthroughs in their own respective areas. I deeply sensed possibilities for greater contact, but did not come across any initiatives that seemed to directly connect both areas.
Around the turn of the century, I began to speak more openly about my unification intuition, forming small groups willing to think along with me. My role in leading the Program in Interdisciplinary Studies (PIDS) at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton gave me an unusually broad mandate to engage with researchers across many fields, offering potential stepping stones toward connecting matter science and mind science, among many other areas of focus.
After my mandatory retirement in 2023, with fewer administrative responsibilities and even more time for research, I decided to proceed more directly by writing the FEST Log, entry by entry, largely without advance planning. In this way, the four Parts of that Log took shape organically. While writing Part 3, I realized that I had arrived at a core epistemological diagram; in Part 4, this was complemented by a core ontological diagram.
Future of FEST: the next Phase
The second FEST Phase, following the Foundation Phase, will focus on community formation. I have no particular plans, but I foresee a gradual process of encountering individuals and, later, groups with overlapping interests. Over the past two years, I have already begun to meet more people closely aligned with my way of thinking than ever before, likely reflecting both the increasing clarity of the FEST framework and a broadening shift in the Zeitgeist, or spirit of the times.
Starting with the next entry, the fifth FEST Part will mark a transition from single-author foundation building to multi-voiced dialogue, bringing in contributors with backgrounds very different from my own. One important consequence of this shift is the possibility of addressing the experimental side of FEST more directly, alongside the theoretical work that led to its epistemology and ontology.
As in natural science, a science of mind ultimately depends on experiments—“practice” in contemplative terms—which alone can validate theories, or “views.” This is an area in which collaboration is essential. As a first indication of this direction, the initial dialogue will connect experientially with entry #005, which introduced the Japanese philosopher Kitaro Nishida.